Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

7

Uhhh...if you must, but I’d rather you not. But you’re the boss. :) As it stands, it would be closed in Hermeneutics.SE.
– Der ÜbermenschFeb 5 '17 at 5:48

2

This is literally a question on definitions, not on facts. Closing.
– Sklivvz♦Feb 5 '17 at 13:19

6

How is this opinion based? There are commonly accepted definitions of a refugee and it is not a matter of opinion whether or not Jesus fits these.
– bonFeb 5 '17 at 15:28

2

@SalvadorDalin There is a huge amount of historical evidence that Jesus existed as a person. Whether he did any of the things the Bible claims he did is another question but it is widely recognised amongst historians that he was a real person.
– bonFeb 6 '17 at 8:29

2

Being a reverend, pretty clear that Sharpton's context is the Bible story only, with no regard to historicity.
– fredsbendFeb 6 '17 at 17:05

2 Answers
2

One who, in times of persecution or political commotion, flees to a foreign country for safety; as the French refugees, who left France after the revocation of the edict of Nantz, and settled in Flanders and America; the refugees from Hispaniola, in 1792; and the American refugees, who left their country at the revolution.

Jesus, according to the Bible, meets both these definitions, because he was fleeing to escape the fact that Herod was planning to kill all male babies:

he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under (Matthew 2:16)

So the child Jesus was a refugee in Egypt. The reason for fleeing to Egypt has been pointed out in the quotation and that is, Herod wanted to kill Jesus and therefore Jesus had to find safety elsewhere.

According to the Matthean narrative, due to the decree of Herod, Jesus had to escape his wrath by running away to Egypt. Jesus is rendered a refugee at birth and we know very well the plight of a refugee — helpless and dependent.

@Brew Maybe in the sense that some of the people being called refugees today are not facing persecution to the same degree Jesus was. Some might be faced with persecution to the point of death, like ISIS persecuting Yazidis en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_Yazidis_by_ISIL but not others.
– DavePhDFeb 5 '17 at 4:09

9

All these sources are from the Bible, or Christian sources based on it. Is there independent confirmation from historical sources that Herod was really killing babies at the time? From a quick web search, it seems that even Christian sites admit that the answer is no. So the best we can affirm is that according to the Gospels, Jesus was a refugee.
– Federico PoloniFeb 5 '17 at 8:47

6

I think an "According to the gospel" line should be added to the answer to focus it and prevent question about the historical accuracy of the Bible and Jesus.
– SIMELFeb 5 '17 at 12:09

Sharpton is referring to the time shortly after Jesus' birth as detailed in the Bible. He and his family did flee to Egypt.

When [the Magi] had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph [Jesus' father] in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child [Jesus] and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.”Matthew 2:13

I personally find the word "refugee" a bit of a stretch here. Jesus' family was fleeing a danger that was very specific to them, not a general danger such as war. Jesus did flee (or rather, his parents did while he was an infant) his homeland according to the Bible story, but I don't think the word refugee is a reasonable description.

One who, in times of persecution or political commotion, flees to a foreign country for safety; as the French refugees, who left France after the revocation of the edict of Nantz, and settled in Flanders and America; the refugees from Hispaniola, in 1792; and the American refugees, who left their country at the revolution.

Considering Sharpton's propensity for political commentary, it's extremely likely the second definition is what Sharpton had mind. He was probably making a subtle commentary on the current Syrian refugee issue.

Whatever the current definition is, the 5 BCE definition would have been very different - if the word even existed.
– hdhondtFeb 5 '17 at 2:19

6

UNHCR defines a refugee as someone fleeing conflict or persecution, seems like a perfect fit to me.
– alexFeb 5 '17 at 2:25

4

Why don't you think it's a reasonable description? Are you thinking that it only refers to people en masse fleeing some situation, like the Syrian refugees? Lots of refugees flee because they are personally and specifically targeted by their governments or even their families, such as religious converts from many countries.
– curiousdanniiFeb 5 '17 at 3:51

2

@Brew refugees can be within their home country. As a historical example: "Large numbers of white refugees, also, left their homes at the same time with the negroes"; "In New Berne, where there are more than eight thousand colored refugees, but little more than three thousand eat government bread." books.google.com/…
– DavePhDFeb 5 '17 at 3:53

13

@fredsbend: There's nothing in the Geneva Convention (the legally binding multilateral treaty regulating the rights of refugees) which states that a person who is individually persecuted cannot be a refugee. The threat from which a refugee flees can also be a very specific threat, it doesn't have to be "a general danger such as war". At least under the definition of "refugee" from the Geneva Convention, your understanding of the term is a misconception (and a potentially dangerous one, in my opinion).
– SchmuddiFeb 5 '17 at 10:12